This is where logic / epistemology / maths / statistics / economics comes to save the day.
1) Knowledge is meant to aid our decision-making. Decisions are made to satisfy a set of goals. Goals depend on one’s value system. Value systems are refined via trial-and-error (e.g. people’s taste in food becomes more refined the more they’re exposed to different foods).
2) There are always more than one possible mental model we can use to fit any given set of observations / data / evidence. Including models which I have not even begun to imagine (hence the need for intellectual humility, also known as open-mindedness: being open to the existence of new models).
For me to view truth objectively, I must understand the above axioms. Then, whenever the available evidence / data / observations allow for multiple possible models (i.e. multiple possible versions of “truth”, also know as “world views”, “perspectives”, etc.), I must acknowledge that, due to my lack of data / analytical capabilities (i.e. ignorance), I cannot rule out any one of the possible models. This set of all possible models would be defined as my Knowledge set. Ideally, using statistics, I can assign to each possible model a probability that it is true.
When I use this knowledge to make my decisions, I will analyse the pay-off of my decision, under each possible model (also factoring in each model’s probability). Then, looking at it holistically, I can settle on a definite decision which I believe best serves my goals. (In micro-Economics, this is called “decision-making under uncertainty”.)
Under the above axioms, certain “beliefs” are considered utterly useless, if having them does not affect my decision-making process at all, i.e. will not affect how I choose to live my life. (E.g. how exactly God created the world. None of my business.)
This is the proper way to handle “knowledge”. Basically, the scientific way. Because logic / epistemology tells us that all the other known ways of thinking do not work. Especially fundamentalism, which simply ignores the existence of all the other possible models (i.e. “perspectives”, “world views”, etc.), and merely engages in circular reasoning within one arbitrarily preferred model.
Unfortunately, some people, “wise” in their own eyes, refuse to acknowledge even the existence of better ways of thinking, and will never learn. Worse, they seem to gleefully imagine themselves to be God’s special chosen ones who are blessed with esoteric knowledge: Bible™ + Holy Spirit™ = I have the Truth™ and naysayers be damned.
Proverbs 26:11-12 New English Translation (NET Bible)
11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit,
so a fool repeats his folly.
12 Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.
PS. Sadly, this ^ post will make little sense to people unacquainted with basic logic / epistemology / maths / statistics / economics. Especially to those who prefer to imagine that they don’t need that “worldly” knowledge when they already have the Bible™ + Holy Spirit™.
Their worldview relies on soooo many unwarranted assumptions, and somehow they’re emotionally / intellectually incapable of grasping that basic fact.
PPS. Anyway, to answer your original question concretely: for people who understand that the essential human existential problem is “what should I do with my life”, instead of “what set of beliefs must I force myself to adopt to secure a special place in heaven and avoid hell”, then bible-reading will be primarily focused on moral enlightenment. So a wise reader would make full use of every plausible interpretational approach (also called “hermeneutic” in bible scholar lingo) to derive reasonable moral principles to test out in real life. It is through practice of such moral principles that we find out what really works (leads to human flourishing), and what is just nonsense and simply leads to more human suffering. (Social Sciences especially play a huge part in giving us objective data on what sort of moral principles lead to what kind of real-life outcomes. “Fundamentalism” generally fails miserably.)